From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: Linville's L2 rant... -- Re: PATCH Fix bonding active-backup behavior for VLAN interfaces Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:48:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20060801164827.GE29208@tuxdriver.com> References: <44CA34D0.1070507@candelatech.com> <44CA87C5.1060905@candelatech.com> <20060730.205032.130618331.davem@davemloft.net> <200607311015.40255.Christophe.Devriese@eurid.eu> <20060731123038.GA10138@tuxdriver.com> <1154396348.5170.43.camel@jzny2> <20060801120836.GA29208@tuxdriver.com> <1154435614.5170.111.camel@jzny2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Christophe Devriese Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:42509 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750811AbWHAQsz (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:48:55 -0400 To: Jamal Hadi Salim Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1154435614.5170.111.camel@jzny2> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:33:34AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > And, I think that a > > reconsideration of all three functions as a group could lead to > > better/cleaner functionality with easier support for extension (e.g. > > 802.1s). > > Agreed. I have some very strong opinions on this subject that i could > share with you if you want. For example, IMO, I think it would be a lot > reasonable to assume that a VLAN or VLANS are attributes of a netdevice > (just like IP addresses or MAC addresses are). I'd love to hear them. Feel free to send them off list, since I know how shy you can be... :-) John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com